Sloan v. Pfizer, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Vyas v. Vyas

    CV 15-02152 RSWL (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Ms. Nagar does not explain how she came to know this information, but it is likely that she learned it from speaking directly with Plaintiff, which would constitute inadmissible hearsay. See Sloan v. Pfizer, Inc., No. C 08-1849 SBA, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78785, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008)(sustaining a lack of personal knowledge objection to statements in an attorney's declaration based on information he learned directly from his client). Therefore, Ms. Nagar lacks personal knowledge and fails to lay a foundation for admission of her statement into evidence.

  2. Alul v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

    Case No.16-cv-04384-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016)   Cited 19 times
    Distinguishing Pierce-Nunes because "none of the named plaintiffs lived or purchased the allegedly defective products in the Northern District"

    Defendant's supporting declaration and motion list the five anticipated individuals and their titles, but do not "specify the nature of the testimony that his witnesses will provide." Sloan v. Pfizer, Inc., No. C 08-1849 SBA, 2008 WL 4167083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2008) That said, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs that this is grounds to deny Honda's motion, although it does mean "the convenience of such witnesses is entitled to less weight." Id.

  3. Kondo v. Anthelio Health Care Solutions, Inc.

    Case No. 15-cv-03244-DMR (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2015)

    (Ahmad Decl., Aug. 8, 2015 (2d Ahmad Decl.), ¶ 5.) Defendant argues that the "key witnesses" are located in Texas, citing Sloan v. Pfizer, No. C 08-1849 SBA, 2008 WL 4167083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2008), in which the court considered the "nature and quality" of witness testimony, in addition to their location in the respective venues. However, the limited information provided by the parties about each witness's knowledge and information does not tip the balance of this factor in either party's favor.

  4. Luchini v. CarMax, Inc.

    1:12cv0417 LJO DLB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2012)

    In determining the convenience of the witnesses, a court should consider not only the number of witnesses located in the respective venues, but also the nature and quality of their testimony. Sloan v. Pfizer, Inc., 2008 WL 4167083, *5 (N.D.Cal. 2008). While it is likely that a number of employees at corporate headquarters will be witnesses, it is unlikely that all 29 individuals, given the vague descriptions of their positions and the cumulative nature of their testimony, would be called as witnesses.

  5. AFG, LLC v. ATTIA

    Case No. 2:10-cv-01296-GMN-GWF (D. Nev. May. 11, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Weighing the convenience of the witnesses, however, is not a battle of numbers, but instead requires analysis of the importance of the witnesses' proposed evidence. Sloan v. Pfizer, Inc., 2008 WL 4167083, *5 (N.D. Cal. 2008), citing Waites v. First Energy Leasing Corp., 605 F.Supp. 219, 222 (N.D.Ill. 1985); and Abbott v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., 2008 WL 4279590, *4 (E.D.Mo. 2008). In addition to himself, Defendant states that Darren Dunckel, the former president and CEO of Verge, Moshe J. Schnapp, and the person most knowledgeable for Westgold Escrow Services are expected to testify as to the facts surrounding the alleged deficiency on the promissory note, as well as to other defenses that Defendant Attia has against the Plaintiff. Motion (#10), Exhibit A, Declaration of Yossi Attia. Defendant's motion and declaration provided no specifics about these witnesses' expected testimony.

  6. Multibene Ingredients Oy Ltd. v. Sturm Foods Inc.

    658 F. Supp. 2d 250 (D. Me. 2009)   Cited 2 times
    In Multibene, the plaintiff was a Finnish corporation with a principle place of business in Finland and the defendant a Wisconsin corporation with a principle place of business in Wisconsin. 658 F. Supp. 2d at 252.

    While this factor has become less significant with the increase of electronically-based data storage systems, it still must be given weight by the Court as the First Circuit has not held otherwise. See Coady, 223 F.3d at 11; Sloan v. Pfizer, Inc., No. C 08-1849 SBA, 2008 WL 4167083, at *5 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 8, 2008) (although location of documents alone may not warrant transfer, where other factors weigh in favor of transfer, it can be an important factor). Plaintiff contends that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the location of the relevant documents should not override the presumption given to its choice of venue.